London Local Authorities and Transport for London Bill (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.
	To be read a Second time on Tuesday 12 April.

Harry Barnes: Is my hon. Friend aware that on four recent occasions in Question Time in the Australian Parliament the Australian Foreign Secretary has used my involvement with the organisation Labour Friends of Iraq in an attempt to undermine the stance adopted by the Australian Labour party? However, that has led only to establishing better links between Labour Friends of Iraq and the Australian Labour party. In Britain, people, whether for or against the invasion, can unite in helping the emerging Iraqi trade union and labour movement to play an active role in the development of civil society and democracy in that country.

Darfur

Jack Straw: On the issue of the offers made by Condoleeza Rice on 23 March, we welcome those and they are a product of the negotiations. The real importance of the announcements made by the United States Government on 23 March was that they had moved from a position of some detachment about the E3 process to one of active support. Some of the things that we want to give to the Iranians we can only give to them if the US also does so. That is what we have now got, with the United States commendably agreeing not to block Iran's application for membership of the World Trade Organisation and to provide Iran with much-needed aircraft spares.

Jack Straw: I apologise for the fact that I omitted to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor). As an Essex lad, it always seemed slightly improbable to me that he, coming from the west coast of Scotland, should have taken to the rather raucous people whom I know and love in Southend, but he has done so, and they have to him. It has been a wonderful relationship. He, too, is a great parliamentarian.
	There has been no change of approach by the E3. What was on the table right from the start of discussions between Joska Fischer, Dominique de Villepin, the then Foreign Minister of France, and me in June 2003 was that the default setting would be that we would join with other partners in referring Iran's clear breach of its safeguards agreement to the Security Council. That has always been in reserve, and it has been the means by which we have encouraged Iran to come to the negotiating table. Some active discussions took place on 1 March between the three European Foreign Ministers and Condoleeza Rice in private, and those discussions led, I believe, to the movement by the United States.
	We have no specific time scale, and cannot set a specific one. I hope that the moment does not arise, but if and when it does, we shall all be clear that it has arrived.

Ernie Ross: I thank my right hon. Friend and wish him every success in the ongoing dialogue that will be required. May I remind him, however, that while we recognise that the core of the middle east problem is the Israel-Palestine question, if there is to be peace in the middle east Israel must live in peace with all its neighbours? People in Israel—Israeli Jews, Israeli Christians, Israeli Muslims—need to feel that they are living in a democratic state that recognises their rights as well. May I ask my right hon. Friend to continue to press, in the months ahead, to ensure that there is a comprehensive peace plan so that all peoples in the middle east can live in peace together?

Denis MacShane: When I was appointed four years ago, my first visit was to Zagreb, when I urged full co-operation with ICTY in respect of a gentleman called Gotovina. After serving in the French Foreign Legion, he was reported to have popped up in Guatemala and Argentina in the years of dictatorship in those countries, before returning to his native Croatia. He is wanted on very serious charges. I appeal to him to report to The Hague so that the barrier to Croatia starting negotiations for EU membership can be lifted. That membership is a policy goal that the Government fully support.
	Several Hon. Members rose—

Jack Straw: The reason that Zimbabwe was not on the agenda of the EU summit was that it had been on the agenda of the Foreign Ministers who met a week before, and we had unanimously agreed a position which was followed through last night, after the elections. The hon. Gentleman wishes to mix it. His party's policy is detachment from the European Union. The right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), the deputy Leader of the Conservative party and shadow Foreign Secretary, is unaccountably absent today. He is apparently in the west of England, scared to death about the Liberal Democrat challenge, even in Devizes. He has made it clear that he does not want a common foreign and security policy and has said that it is absurd. Without the common foreign and security policy and our engagement inside the European Union there would have been no common policy on Zimbabwe, no sanctions against it and no arms embargo.—[Interruption.] Somebody said from a sedentary position, "What is the difference?" The difference is that we would have been on our own and would have played into Mugabe's hands. He has long suggested that the dispute is a bilateral one between us and Zimbabwe. It is not. It is an international scandal for which he is responsible.

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend, like the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), has been consistent in her approach on Zimbabwe, and I commend her for that. As I have explained, and as the House is well aware, it is a fact that the Government of South Africa take a different position from that of the whole European Union, the United States and many others in the international community. It is currently taking a different stand from that of the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, who yesterday said, in very measured terms, that he was
	"concerned that the electoral process had not countered the sense of disadvantage felt by the opposition political parties who consider the conditions were unfair."
	He went on in a similar vein.
	We have good relations with South Africa. If there is ever to be any solution to the issue of Zimbabwe, we have to maintain and build those relations so that we can strengthen dialogue, which is what the Prime Minister, myself, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and many others are doing all the time. In the end, I believe that those countries that neighbour Zimbabwe will be forced by the pressure of events to recognise the reality going on underneath their noses.

Jack Straw: That one adverb spoke volumes, because there was huge intimidation of voters. It is true that there was less violence than in 2000 or 2002, but less us be clear that the state-controlled media, everybody in ZANU-PF and that apparatus, the police and the army—all the security forces—were all saying that if people voted for the Movement for Democratic Change, they were both cowards and traitors. Being a traitor in Zimbabwe is not just being damned in words; it means losing one's livelihood and, often, being locked up. The level of intimidation was intense, in addition to, as we now know, there being high levels of fraud.

Chris Grayling: Has the Leader of the House made any provision for the consideration of secondary legislation between now and dissolution? I ask that particularly in the light of this morning's European Court judgment, as the Court's provisional decision was to overturn the food supplements directive. Will he make provision between now and Dissolution to suspend the regulations that apply in this country for the duration of the election campaign, given the issues that the industry faces as we speak?

Edward Davey: It is good to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	I am grateful to the Minister for coming to the House today and accept his assurances regarding his inability to provide the written statement to Opposition spokesmen beforehand. It is not his usual practice and we accept his apology.
	The right hon. Gentleman cannot brush aside the judge's ruling yesterday. Is he not prepared to accept the judgment of Sir Richard Mawrey QC, in an historic ruling, that the postal voting system introduced by the Labour Government is
	"an open invitation to fraud"?
	Does the Minister not realise that the judge's statement that the Government are complacent refers to potential fraud during the coming general election? That was the point. Does he realise that on the day the general election is called, his main concern should be not the embarrassment of the Labour party, but his duty to the   British people to protect the legitimacy of the democratic process? How can he hope to restore trust in politics when voters cannot have trust in the postal voting system that the present Government devised?
	When an election commissioner describes Britain's postal voting system as "hopelessly insecure", will the Minister really dismiss that judgment? The case was one of "massive, systematic and organised" electoral fraud. Today, rather than give excuses or fail to take responsibility, why do the Government not undertake to do far more than he has announced? Thanks to the Government's foot-dragging, it is too late for primary legislation to implement the Electoral Commission's recommendations, but there are things that can be done so that in the coming weeks we can restore confidence in our democratic system.
	Why does the Minister not try to build a cross-party consensus on the emergency measures needed to protect the coming election from fraud? Why does he not, for example, ask the Electoral Commission to produce plans to monitor closely the operation of the postal voting system during the election? Why cannot Parliament ask the commission to undertake an information campaign to ensure that voters know how best to protect their postal votes from theft? Is it really not possible in the time left to this Parliament to pass orders to implement more protections for the forthcoming ballot? Why can we not legislate by statutory instrument to ensure that postal votes are counted separately, making it easier to identify fraud?
	Why can we not allow parties to check postal vote application forms after the election? Why can we not extend the period for petitioning against an election result to two months, so that such checks can be made? Why can we not enable presiding election officers at polling stations to draw up a list of people who turn up to vote in person and are surprised to be told that they have had a postal vote issued, and allow such voters to submit a tendered pink ballot paper instead, in case the postal vote is not used or is found to have been stolen?
	I wish that we had not reached this point of crisis. Time and again, the Liberal Democrats warned about the shortcomings of the Government's postal voting system. Now, the Labour Government have one last chance to stop fraud and to prevent a general election result becoming tainted. If Ministers do not act, the stench of this shoddy affair might be the one issue that drives them from office.

Alan Beith: What assurance can the Minister give us that in the realities of the election electoral staff will have the opportunity to deal with fraud? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that when a large number of postal vote applications come pouring in, a very small staff will not have time to check whether they are coming in multiples and whether they have had previous applications from the same address? What support and additional help can be given to ensure that the staff have the opportunity that they need to check against fraud, and that presiding officers at polling stations have some powers that they can use to deal with a person who discovers that somebody has voted for him?

Patrick Cormack: Could the right hon. Gentleman do two things? First, recognising that the judiciary can be criticised only on a substantive motion, would he withdraw the remarks that he made to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), the shadow Leader of the House? Secondly, will he ask all electoral registration officers to check the validity of those who appear to reply to postal votes by writing to them?

Peter Luff: Is the Minister aware that there is a certain grim satisfaction on the Opposition Benches that although the entire British democratic process has been tarnished by what happened in Birmingham, the principal short-term victim of the Government's ill judged dash to favour postal voting is the Labour party itself, particularly in Birmingham—"As you sow, so shall you reap"?
	May I refer the Minister to the wise words of the Birmingham Post editorial this morning, which read:
	"If emergency action is not taken to change the system in time for the General Election—insisting on postal votes being checked and counted separately at the very least—the Government will leave itself open to the allegation that it is reluctant to act because its real intention is to deliver corrupt votes to Labour MPs."?

Andrew Robathan: May I counsel the Minister that shooting the messenger is rarely a good idea? His criticisms of the judge demean him, not the judge. The judge spoke about open invitations to fraud in a banana republic when we are talking about the mother of Parliaments, of which I am proud to be a Member. This is a big issue. Can we have fewer fine words and more action? I note from the Minister's statement that there have been only four prosecutions since 1998 for electoral fraud. Will the six Labour councillors now barred from office and their assistants be prosecuted? What is the Home Office doing about that? While the Home Office and police are having discussions, what action will police be required to take on allegations of fraud—which will arise—from electoral registration officers?

Points of Order

Patricia Hewitt: I am not sure that I can, at the moment. That is an extremely important question, and I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and the Regions to deal with it when she winds up the debate.
	I want to move on to part 2 of the Bill, which will plug a significant gap in existing equalities legislation. During the consultation process, a number of organisations strongly called for the extension of protection against religious discrimination. At present, that protection applies only to employment conditions. The Bill's provisions in respect of discrimination on grounds of religion or belief are designed to answer those concerns.
	The Bill will also address the imbalance that has emerged from case law under the Race Relations Act 1976. People of the Jewish faith and in the Sikh community are afforded protection in certain areas of the law as ethnic groups, while members of other religions and faiths are not. For example, a Jew or a Sikh who is refused service in a restaurant or a shop can challenge that discrimination through the legal system, but members of any other religion or belief who receive the same unfair treatment cannot. I hope that all hon. Members will agree that it is simply unacceptable that a shop, hotel or restaurant can lawfully refuse to serve Muslims, and a golf club can refuse to accept them as members, whereas the same practices would be outlawed if applied to Jewish or Sikh men and women.

Malcolm Bruce: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), whose record of campaigning on disability issues, especially, is perhaps unrivalled in the House. I have been happy to support him on several occasions. He gave an eloquent testimony to the reasons why he supports the Bill and how he has come to arrive at that point.
	Before I go into the details of our support for the Bill, may I apologise, especially to the Minister for Industry and the Regions, for the fact that I will have to leave just before the end of the debate, although no discourtesy is intended? I am pleased to say that she will know that although I have several comments to make about the Bill, my party certainly supports it and regrets, in one sense, that our debate is only a rehearsal for proceedings that will presumably take place in the fairly near future and follow through to the Bill's enactment.
	The very title of the Bill seems to encapsulate how we have turned round 180° in our approach to these issues. It is not an anti-discrimination Bill, but an equality Bill, which represents a fundamental change of approach. Indeed, although I noticed that the Joint Committee described clause 3 as being more like a party manifesto than a piece of legislation, the provision nevertheless makes it clear that the Bill is hugely aspirational, with the intention of promoting equality rather than giving people the means of dealing with discrimination. After all, the opportunity to deal with discrimination comes only after the event if the law gives one rights to protest against it. The Bill is an attempt to give people legal rights so that they are equal in the first place. That is a fundamentally different approach.
	Reading through the submissions that we have received, I was interested to see that, whatever their initial reaction, the overwhelming majority of organisations are now pretty well on board, although some have made supplementary comments on what is necessary. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the legislation's application in Scotland. Even those of us who represent Scottish constituencies appreciate the fact that the Bill addresses the differences between the roles of the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament, but I hope that when the Bill is enacted and the commission is established some clarification will be made available, because otherwise people in Scotland might be confused about where to turn for support. I am sure that that can be done.
	In an intervention on the Secretary of State, I raised what will be the main thrust of my speech, which is my hope that a single equality Act will deal effectively with the hierarchy of equality, which the right hon. Gentleman also mentioned. In the past, we have addressed different aspects of equality in a piecemeal fashion through different pieces of legislation, with the result that the various aspects are perceived to be of different degrees of importance. That is why the disability rights organisations, for example, were concerned and suggested that—in a sense as a gesture—the Bill should provide for a person who is or has been disabled to be on the commission. In reality, it is inconceivable that the commission will not represent and promote the interests of disabled people. The issue will not be whether a person has been disabled, but what is done to ensure that disabled people's rights and opportunities are promoted to the full.
	At this point, let me make a small special plea, as I tend to do on occasions such as this, as chairman of the all-party group on deafness, which has been established in the past year. There is a range of disabilities, each of which brings different needs. We have not set up the all-party group on deafness to detach ourselves from the general campaign on disability rights. We simply acknowledge that there are discrete issues of particular concern to deaf people that need to be addressed separately, while continuing to support and to work in full co-operation with other groups.
	I welcomed the Department for Work and Pensions' recognition of sign language, which took place within the past couple of years. It was nicely publicised as the Government giving official recognition to British sign language; in fact, it was the Department doing so and I have not seen anything comparable from other Departments, such as the Department for Education and Skills. My serious point is that the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe is determining what type of legal instrument can be added to the European convention on human rights to give sign language users the recognition that has been given to users of other minority languages. It is worth putting on record the fact that in the UK there are more users of British or Irish sign language than speakers of Welsh or Gaelic, yet the resources that the latter two languages attract are probably 50 times as great as those that go to sign language. Although I welcome the DWP initiative, it is only a drop in the ocean of what is needed to enable sign language users to use their language fully in the wide range of circumstances to which clause 3 refers. I hope that the commission recognises that it should take a proactive approach to that issue.
	Having put that on the record, I shall get down from my soapbox and address the mechanics of the Bill and its proposals. Several of the groups that made representations have argued the case for a single equality Act. The Equal Opportunities Commission supported that case particularly well, saying that if the new body is to be effective, it must be backed up by a consistent legal framework, be able to fulfil a full range of roles, be organised and resourced to work effectively in Scotland and Wales as well as in England and Great Britain, and be able to deal effectively with each of the equality strands and with human rights. It also has to be properly resourced.
	I do not disagree with the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), in that it is legitimate for the following question to be asked and for the Government to spell out the answer. They do not have to do so today. It is: why will the new body cost £70 million as opposed to the current cost of £43 million? I hope that there are good reasons for this, because the aspiration is to do a great deal more. A little more information about why this will be the case and how the distribution will take place would give us some comfort that the extra cost will be because of the reach of the new legislation and not because of an expanding bureaucracy.
	The Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) and I recently spoke at a CBI conference on diversity. It is worth noting that at that conference Sir Digby Jones of the CBI said that the organisation supported the Bill and the representations that had given support to the Bill, but then expressed many reservations about the detailed application and regulations that may flow from it. I hope that the Government will recognise that a single equality Act should reassure the likes of the CBI that it would bring together and simplify legislation and regulation rather than make it more complicated. That, fundamentally, is the objective.

Malcolm Bruce: The mechanisms for delivering policy and particular Ministers are matters for judgment. Our view is that it is perfectly possible for this matter to be dealt with in another Department—for example, the Home Office. I understand that the DTI, partly because of the second nature of the Secretary of State, is also the Department for equality, but it is slightly odd that the Bill has been promoted by the DTI. People might worry that it was more narrowly drafted because of that and confined to economic issues when, I am glad to say, it was not. The Bill runs much more widely than the DTI. It reaches throughout society, as it rightly and properly should. It is just a convenience of current Government organisation that it happens to be coming from the DTI.
	I reinforce another point made by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk. On the impact of the proposed legislation on business—I reiterate that it has a much wider impact than business—it is important that the needs of small and medium-sized businesses be particularly represented. With the greatest respect to the Government, there is sometimes a tendency to think that if they have spoken to the CBI they have the voice of business. Big business has an agenda and a capacity to respond that are different from small and medium-sized businesses'. I hope that that will be taken firmly on board.
	The main case is for a single equality Act. Current legislation has grown up piecemeal over the years. I am advised that there are currently 30 Acts, 38 statutory instruments, 11 codes of practice and 12 EC directives and recommendations relevant to the areas and activities of the proposed new commission. That is a difficult mix of areas for people to take account of. As has been said, there are anomalies within the existing system. If someone is being discriminated against because they are Jewish or a Sikh, they can have recourse to the law. If, however, that is happening to someone and they are Muslim, currently they do not have that recourse. An equality Act can deal with that simply and straightforwardly.
	The bringing together of equality and human rights is absolutely right in principle and in practice. It is often forgotten that the UK is not only an early signatory to the European convention on human rights, but that substantially we wrote it. It is not some form of alien European imposition. The convention was drawn up substantially by British lawyers in the aftermath of the war and the Nazi occupation to create a framework of fundamental rights to which all countries that had been engaged in the war could sign up. We might tend to think that we were providing the convention to the occupied, defeated and liberated nations of Europe out of magnanimity, and that it somehow did not apply to us. However, we wrote it in our own terms and we signed up to it.
	The Conservatives talk glibly about the possibility of repealing the Human Rights Act 1998. I saw the Leader of the Opposition looking somewhat uncomfortable when challenged on this point recently. When he was asked whether he was going to renege on our commitment to the European convention on human rights, he said no. I should remind the Conservatives that when we signed up to the convention in 1953, we also undertook to incorporate it in our domestic law, although it took us nearly 50 years to do so. It is really disconcerting to hear the Conservatives suggesting that they might go back on that fundamental part of our treaty obligations. The Human Rights Act gave British citizens the right to take human rights cases to the domestic courts, rather than having to incur the expense and delay of taking them to Strasbourg.

John Bercow: My view is that we should proceed with the commission for equality and human rights. I do not believe that it is necessary to await the outcome of the reviews, because the proposal to introduce the Bill was decided on the powerful and compelling evidence of unsatisfactory practice before the decision to establish those reviews was taken.
	The outcome of the reviews may be invaluable in informing the legislative framework and bolstering the effectiveness of the commission but, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk and other right hon. and hon. Members know, there is a tendency to inertia under any Government or, alternatively and sometimes as well, there is a tendency to have too many pieces of legislation and too little time in which to introduce them. My strong preference is to press on with the Bill while we have the momentum.
	Our support for the Bill should be unequivocal. I was extremely appreciative of what my hon. Friend said. He did not sit on the fence and there was no question of "on the one hand" and "on the other hand". He rightly expressed reservations from the Front Bench about specific clauses and asked sensible and proper questions, but his clarion call for decisive action could not be bettered by anyone in the House. I pay tribute to him for his commitment. Indeed, he and I have often talked about which of us is the modernising Conservative. I have always tended to say that I am and that I am seeking to persuade him to join me in that cause, but today he was superb. We are all modernisers now; we all want a modernised, successful Conservative party, in government after the election, with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) as Prime Minister.
	I want to conclude on an issue that has been touched on and which cannot be disregarded. It is business involvement—I use the term advisedly—with the new commission and business reaction to the legislation. There is a fine balance. Everybody these days talks about the importance of better regulation, light-touch regulation and sensitive regulation. I agree with that: my view is that regulation should be relatively light touch in the sense that it should not impede the successful operation of legitimate and fair-minded business. On the other hand, it cannot be so light touch as, frankly, to undermine the very purpose of, and rationale behind, the introduction of the Bill in the first place.
	I started by saying, quite categorically, that I thought there was a problem and that it needed to be addressed. The notion, sometimes rather vulgarly popularised in the more down-market red-top tabloids, that prejudice does not really exist and is just the politically correct plaything of politicians of the left has to be decisively challenged and countered. That discrimination is there. Sometimes people suffer in silence because they do not know how they are to secure redress, do not think that they will be heard or do not know where to go. Discrimination and disadvantage exist, and we have to be prepared to tackle them.
	What we cannot allow is a regime so minimalist that the noble aspirations of the Bill are not given effect in practice. It has to be light touch, but clear and firm. In the best spirit, I suggest to the Minister and to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest, who, I hope, will occupy the Minister's post in a matter of weeks, that the principle that should guide public policy here is quite straightforward. The Commission on Equality and Human Rights, in dealing with businesses, should be the friend of the willing but uninitiated and the foe of the wilfully non-compliant and incorrigibly discriminatory. I cannot put it more simply than that.
	I have often argued for exemptions from legislation for relatively small businesses. I do not think that that approach would work in this context. The point has been made, and rightly, that more than 99 per cent. of businesses in this country are small—more than 99 per cent. employ fewer than 100 people. They account for somewhat over 50 per cent. of the private sector work force, and last time I looked they generated well in excess of two fifths of our national output. In other words, most businesses are small. We cannot simply say in matters of equality, good practice and human rights that they are to be exempt from requirements that will apply to larger businesses and to public authorities.
	We have a duty to try to ensure that we are sensitive, that we are not unduly adversarial, that we work with and try to bring the best out of agencies that are trying to do the right thing. But on the principles of equality, of respect and of human rights, there cannot and should not be a compromise.
	I welcome the Bill, and I am pleased to have had an opportunity to speak in support of it. Once again, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk on his passionate and effective contribution to our proceedings.

Linda Perham: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments; he is a man after my own heart on this matter. There is a great cohort of people in their later years who have a big contribution to make and, in fact, they outnumber younger people. Employers would do well to recognise the talents of those older people.
	As I was saying, part 2 extends the protection against discrimination on grounds of religion or belief. Clause 56 mentions discrimination in advertisements, which returns us to the Bill that I tried to introduce seven years ago—but I was addressing age discrimination. Older people are demonstrably discriminated against in financial services, including insurance of all sorts, in travel, in car hire, in civic life, where magistrates and jurors have to retire at 60, and in social care, where people who are disabled and over 65 cannot apply for mobility and independent living allowance. There is discrimination in health care. I campaigned with Age Concern to extend the invitation for breast cancer screening to those aged up to 70. I think that the statistics still show that women between the ages of 70 and 74 are most in danger of contracting and dying from breast cancer. Also, I know that we are not within the jurisdiction of the Holy See, but cardinals over the age of 80 are not allowed to vote in the papal elections.

Angela Eagle: All attempts to raise the issues in Parliament, whether in Government time or in other ways, are welcome. When we ultimately reach a Committee stage, we might want to re-examine the Bill to ascertain whether to include further mechanisms in it. Given the good will in the House, at least today, I hope that we can find reasonable ways of realising that ambition.
	Despite 30-odd years of anti-discrimination legislation, serious problems remain. The gender pay gap is approximately 18 per cent. on average, and is grossly higher in some sectors of the economy, especially financial services, where it is about 60 per cent. Members of ethnic minorities suffer from a similar gap, for which only their ethnicity can account, and is as unacceptable as the gender pay gap. The House will consider the Disability Discrimination Bill tomorrow—thank goodness that will reach the statute book. However, people with disabilities are not even at the starting gate because many are denied the practical right to get to work, participate fully in society and make the undoubted contribution that their many talents would bring to it. We want the new single commission to assist us in dealing with those formidable problems.
	I especially welcome the extension in part 2 of the goods and services protection on the ground of race. However, I echo the impatience that has been expressed in the Chamber today at the exclusion of what I call the orphan strands—sexual orientation, age and religious belief—which currently have no primary legislation. I suspect that we can put that right only through a rapid move to a single equality Act. My right hon. Friend the Minister knows that I have been pushing for that in the party—it is now official party policy—and in any other way that I can, including involvement in the all-party group and working with Lord Lester, who is a doughty campaigner on such issues. I promoted his private Member's Bill in this House after he managed to carry it in the other place. It is important to get on with this matter quickly.
	I especially welcome the duty in the Bill to promote equality on the ground of gender. The Government promised to do that in 1998, but used the ominous phrase, "when legislative time is available". Some of us have fought since then to ensure that legislative time would be made available. We have not quite made it under the gate as it closes on this Parliament, but I hope that we will revert to it as a matter of great urgency in the next. I am encouraged by the response to my question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East—[Hon. Members: "West."] How could I confuse the Members for Leicester, West and for Leicester, East? I must be having a tiring day. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz). I was encouraged by the Secretary of State's answer that we would proceed rapidly from dress rehearsal to the real thing at the earliest opportunity in the next Parliament.
	It is interesting that the Joint Committee on Human Rights described the Bill in uncharacteristically enthusiastic terms as
	"the most important measure for the advancement of human rights in this country since the Human Rights Act itself"
	I am encouraged that there is enthusiasm for creating a mechanism to ensure that the rights of British citizens under the Human Rights Act are effectively safeguarded without the need for extremely expensive and cumbersome constant recourse to the courts. I know that other Members want to concentrate on that issue, so I will not pursue it. The fundamental duty of the single commission, however, is very welcome.
	I agree with many of those who have said that we need a robust legal framework for the commission for equality and human rights to enforce. That brings us back inexorably to the case for a single equality Act, and the importance of ensuring that such an Act reaches the statute book as quickly as possible in the next Parliament, consistent with doing a good job on the drafting. To that end, I am extremely encouraged that the discrimination law review has been set up, with the equality review working in tandem with it, to begin to do the work on what the single equality Act will look like. It is important that that proceeds as quickly as possible so that the single commission has a coherent set of legislation to enforce once it is up and running.
	It has been said that the existing anti-discrimination law in the UK is rather complex. Different figures have been given for the number of items—I think that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) had slightly more up-to-date figures than I have. I had a figure of slightly less than 100, but a few more statutory instruments and EU directives have probably passed me by since I last did a count. We can all agree, however, that people must try to find their way through a tangled, inconsistent, unpredictable, piecemeal and complex web—even when, as in the majority of cases, I believe, employers wish to do the right thing and ensure that they abide by the law.
	Such a complex network of legislation and duties also makes it almost impossible for individuals who believe that they may have been discriminated against to find out, by examining the law, what their rights are, how they might access them and how they might protect them, unless they have the support of, say, a trade union or an advocacy group, which can teach them and point out what their rights are. Ideally, a simplified, harmonised approach is needed. We need an approach that consolidates some of the law that we have, but that also extends that law. As many Members on both sides of the House have pointed out today, there are some serious loopholes and inconsistencies in the law, which create a hierarchy of discrimination and protection from discrimination, which is unjustifiable when it is examined.
	The existing law is under-inclusive. Those who are discriminated against on the grounds of gender, race or disability are more widely protected than those who are discriminated against in relation to what I have referred to as the orphan strands—the newer strands of sexual orientation, age and religious belief. As has been pointed out by other Members who have contributed to the debate, those of a certain age or sexual orientation may be actively discriminated against in the provision of goods, services or facilities, yet have no redress in law.
	The present position is ridiculous. It is illegal for a landlord to say that he does not want a woman tenant or to prevent someone becoming a tenant because of that person's colour, but it is not illegal to refuse tenants because of their age or sexual orientation. I cannot for the life of me see any justification for that. It must be put right as quickly as possible.
	As I said earlier, we must shift the focus towards promotion and prevention rather than concentrating only on redress. That means restructuring some of our current laws. Our efforts to introduce a single equality Act must proceed in parallel with work that has already begun to create mechanisms for the enforcement of such a law, and the establishment of the commission for equality and human rights. I hope that in the next Parliament, in the not too distant future, we shall be able to enact both pieces of legislation. I welcome this dress rehearsal, and look forward to the real thing.

Jacqui Lait: I apologise for the fact that I was unavoidably absent for the middle part of this debate, although I followed proceedings with one ear as much as I could. I want to add my voice to all those who have spoken in support of the Bill.
	The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 has been on the statute book for 30 years and, although the Secretary of State may not be aware of it, I worked very hard to ensure its success. I campaigned, lobbied, marched, wrote letters and attended endless meetings in its support, and it is good that the thinking on which it was based is being extended across society.
	While I campaigned for the 1975 Act, in my heart of hearts, I hoped that it would eventually be repealed when we had succeeded in achieving our aims and objectives in respect of equality for women. It is sad that, 30 years later, we are still talking about it. I hope that it does not take another 30 years before our successors can repeal this legislation, which I believe will achieve a huge amount. It is part of the great tradition in which legislation is used to change cultural attitudes. Legislation has a real role in that process and I am sure that, in the long run, this Bill will ensure that discrimination is eliminated from our society.
	I do not want to repeat what many have said already, but neither do I want the warm welcome that this Bill has received in the Chamber to end up with us being burned as we were by the Child Support Act 1991. All hon. Members will remember the heart-rending child support cases that we heard about in our postbags and surgeries, and we should be wary about a Bill that receives a similarly warm reception here. When the Bill is enacted, I am sure that it will be broadly helpful, but we must look at it with a critical eye to ensure that it does not cause the resentment and difficulties experienced with other legislation.
	I am keen that the CEHR should succeed and hope that the Government are not contemplating a repeat of what happened with the Equal Opportunities Commission. I intend no slur on Manchester, but the EOC was rather banished from what might be called the centre of influence. My friends among the commissioners, and my own experience, tell me that the EOC was not as influential as had been hoped when it was established and I am sure that distance was one of the factors in that. I therefore hope that, when the new body is set up, it remains in the centre of influence, which is still London, although I accept that there should be a Welsh and a Scottish element to it because of the devolved Administrations.
	It is crucial that the body works with the grain of society. Although there is a need to confront discrimination and prejudice, it is much easier to persuade a society to accept the changes that are required to deliver equality if people are encouraged to go along that route, rather than enraged or driven to take that route because resentment has built up. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) about the need to work with the grain of society, making sure that businesses, organisations and the community feel that it is in their own best interest to rid society of discrimination and to work towards equality because it would deliver a better society.
	It is important that the new organisation is clear in its thinking. One problem with other equality bodies is that language has been developed that is all-encompassing and which avoids the issue in order not to offend. The problem is that the language itself is derided and people ignore or deride the organisation. None of us wants the efforts to abolish inequality to be undermined by language that invites mockery. We label it politically correct language, but in my view using such language often means avoiding clarity of thought. If we are not clear in our objectives and the meaning of the words that we use, we are likely to undermine our objectives. It is crucial that the CEHR is clear about what it wants to achieve and that it speaks in language that is readily understood.
	Reading the explanatory notes, one thing that struck me was the general duty on the public bodies to ensure gender balance, with which I have no quarrel. That is not before time and I wish them all success in so doing. What slightly bothers me is how that is to be implemented—whether it will be implemented from the centre, whether public bodies will be subject to further quotas and targets, whether there will be costs to the bodies for the measurement of their achievements or lack thereof, and what impact those costs could have on the organisation, in terms of extra administration, and ultimately on the taxpayer or, in the case of local government, the council tax payer.
	We are all well aware that council tax has risen steeply in recent years and that there is huge resentment of it. I would not wish legislation to be approved that added further costs to public bodies. It is encouraging that an organisation such as the Audit Commission is reviewing the amount of auditing work that it imposes on the bodies that it audits. I would hate to think that we were complicit in adding further costs, having just taken some away, particularly from local government. I would like the Minister to assure us that provisions to ensure gender balance will not give rise to extra costs and bureaucracy.
	I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry that it is in the best interests of small businesses to maximise the quality of their employees. Labour Members discussed whether small businesses should be exempt from the legislation and I should be grateful to hear the Minister's thoughts on that and whether it is an issue for the equalities review. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) said that 90 per cent. of business is comprised of small businesses and that we must ensure that they are not overburdened or over-regulated. One million jobs have gone from manufacturing industry in the past few years and we do not want to put yet another regulatory burden on small businesses. We need to work with them so that they are encouraged to hire people and are not badgered and bullied into it.
	Three organisations are being consolidated into one and there will be savings on premises. However, there will be overlapping expertise and the cost to the new organisation will be higher. The existing commissions believe that they do not have sufficient resources and it will be difficult for the Department to work out the balance, but we must ensure that, when the bodies are consolidated, duplication in obvious areas is winnowed out or efficiency will be reduced. No new body would want to be labelled inefficient from the start.
	My final point is more personal. We have discussed the groups that we do not want to suffer discrimination, but I am concerned about the stigma that still attaches to people with mental health problems. When we discuss discrimination against people with disabilities, mental health disabilities are often overlooked. Society still stigmatises people with mental health disabilities more than those with physical disabilities. Will the Minister assure me that the commission's remit will cover mental health so that it can work with the broader population to alleviate people's fears about those with mental health problems? People who are mentally ill are capable of recovering because modern drugs and treatment enable them to play a full part in society. If that is achieved. a large group of people—one in five will suffer from a mental illness at some time—will have that stigma removed and be able to play a full part in society.
	With those slightly cautionary notes, I wish the Bill well, but I also think that we need to look at it with a clear eye. There are pitfalls that we need to avoid before it passes into law, leaving us needing to change the legislation at a later date.

Keith Vaz: I am delighted to take part in what is probably the last Second Reading debate of this Parliament and which, because the Bill will not be able to complete all its stages, may well provide the first Second Reading debate of the next Parliament when we come back after the election. I have been in the House for 18 years, and I cannot recall such a good-tempered debate on an issue that used to cause great controversy. I remember debates on equality and race and community relations in which there was much anxiety and distress among Members on both sides. Certainly, that was so when we were the Opposition and the Government were Conservative. That has not happened today, and we have heard some excellent speeches on both sides. Three in particular deserve mention—those from the hon. Members for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow)—and we have just had a speech from the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait). I often vote for the hon. Member for Buckingham as Back Bencher of the year; I know that he did not win this year, just, and he cannot win every year, but I am sure that after the election I shall vote for him as the Opposition Front Bencher of the year, because I am sure that his hard work in Parliament will be rewarded by whoever is the next Leader of the Opposition.
	What has been good about the debate are the constructive points that Members have put in welcoming what the Government propose to do in the Bill. We have needed a Bill of this kind for some time, and there is no doubt huge support for it outside Parliament. All of us have received a briefing note from practically every one of the organisations involved, and there is universal praise. When the Law Society agrees with Stonewall and the Citizens Advice Bureau with Age Concern, there must be something very right about what the Government propose.
	There is all-party endorsement, although I am sorry that I missed the speech from the Liberal Front Bench and most surprised to see so few Liberal Democrat Members attending; they often claim to belong to the party that speaks for equality, but they obviously do not feel that so strongly that they felt they should come here in large numbers, which is a pity.
	As the Secretary of State said, equality is the defining issue of our age. I am proud to have been a member of the first multiracial Government in this country's history, and I am very proud of what the Labour Government have done since 1997 on equality issues. In a sense, the Bill is an emphatic underlining of the work that we have done and a pledge to continue it after the election.
	A lot of tributes have been given to Ministers, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Minister for Women and Equality, who has steered the Bill through from the initial consultation period, but I particularly mention my Leicester colleague, the Secretary of State, for her work on the equality issue. I have called her the champion of equality. I share a city and a community with her, and we go to many community events together. Throughout her long career, and even before she came to the House through her work for the National Council for Civil Liberties, she has always championed the ethnic minority community and women's rights. It is therefore right that she should have introduced the Bill.
	My concern when the Bill was published—a concern, too, of the black and Asian community—was that we did not want the Government to abolish the Commission for Racial Equality. We felt that this was not the right time to deal with the CRE on the same basis as the other organisations. I welcome the fact that a number of organisations that have never had a commission acting on their behalf, such as Stonewall and Age Concern, will be included, with all these other strands, but I felt, and the community felt, that there was a strong case for keeping the CRE outside the ambit of the new commission until it was ready to join. Ministers in this Government listened very carefully to what the community had to say. They accepted the points made by organisations such as the 1990 Trust, listened to the consultation that took place and heeded the wise words of the CRE chairman, Trevor Phillips, who will now be chairing the equalities review, and they accepted that this was not the right time.
	On race, a number of issues had to be resolved and time was needed to ensure that that was done before the CRE became part of that whole. We therefore welcome the fact that late entry is being accorded to the CRE. That commitment has been warmly welcomed by the community as a whole. That does not detract from the fact that we need to get on and ensure that we have the single equality Act that we need to ensure that the Human Rights Act 1998 is very much a part of our everyday life in this country.
	I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) will be speaking next. There is no better advocate or champion of human rights legislation. She is much more experienced on these matters than I am, and I am sure that she will cover this point. When that legislation first became part of our domestic law, there were concerns about how it would develop. We all welcome it, and it has become part of the everyday life of our country; indeed, it is part of the law. It is right that the commission will recognise human rights issues within its overall ambit. Why have four or five commissions when we could have one commission on equality?
	The other important point in this debate is the way the chairman of the commission and the other commissioners are chosen. I know that there is detail in the Bill and that we will have a chance to scrutinise it when it goes into Committee after the election, but it is important that we ensure that the commission properly reflects the community as a whole and the stakeholders in this new organisation.
	The point made by the hon. Member for Beckenham is also important. I am not sure whether she was in favour of or against targets for public bodies. I think that targets are a very good idea. I recently completed a report called "Making Progress", which looks at Government appointments to quangos over the past five years with particular reference to the black and Asian community. The power of appointment is an extremely important weapon, and we need to make sure that we use it to put black and Asian people on to those committees, to put more women on to our quangos and to make sure that every group in society is properly represented.
	The hon. Member for Daventry, a former Minister who, in government, had the opportunity to make a number of appointments, correctly talked about the huge talent that we have in this country. That is why we have a leadership role in equality and race issues in Europe. We are able to show by example—not by positive action but by merit—how our various communities, not just the black and Asian community, but women and all the other communities that make up Great Britain, have been able to contribute to the country. That is something that we can be proud of, but we need to go much further. Of course, jobs must be awarded on merit, but when the commission is formed, we must ensure not only that the commissioners are representative of society as a whole but, much more importantly, that people who have executive positions are also properly representative of society. That is happening with the civil service now; it is getting better. However, as the Secretary of State and the Minister of State have said in speeches on the issue, there is still so much more that can be done. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar is a rare example of a woman QC, but she was appointed on merit; she just happened to be a woman.
	There has been much better progress in some Departments, especially in the Home Office. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) was Home Secretary, targets were introduced for the first time. In the Lord Chancellor's Department, now the Department for Constitutional Affairs, the Lord Chancellor has made a huge effort to ensure that there is adequate diversity in the appointment of the judiciary—all based on merit. The basis of equality is to ensure not that we have positive discrimination in this country, but that every citizen has the right to be chosen on their merits.
	On today of all days, when the Prime Minister has asked Her Majesty for a general election and Parliament is to be dissolved, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) made a good point: the Bill is a good campaigning issue. It seems as though there will be common ground, which is good for politics and for our country. If equality and race could be taken above party politics and become campaigning subjects across parties and across the political spectrum, that would be the way forward.
	My final point is about location. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Minister for Women and Equality may want to announce that the new commission will be based in Redditch, but what better place to house the new equality commission than the great city of Leicester?

Jacqui Smith: No, because I am short of time. I am sorry.
	The single Commission for Equality and Human Rights will ensure greater impact, relevance, ease of access and coherence.
	I want to try to respond to some of the points made about the commission. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough—to whom I also extend my best wishes for what I know will continue to be an active and, in the broadest sense, political life following her retirement from the House—made the case strongly for legislation to change culture. In particular, she argued that we need both promotion of the values of equality and diversity and sufficient enforcement powers to make a difference. I assure her that we have put in place the necessary teeth in terms of modern enforcement powers to ensure that the commission is able to do that.
	In relation to individual cases, which were raised by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), funding will come from the commission for equality and human rights budget. At the behest of stakeholders, we have not set down specific criteria on which cases should be supported. That will rightly be a decision for the commission to take, and will be part of its strategic planning in relation to spending priorities.
	I know that there is concern about rolling forward the provisions in sections 55 and 73 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. It is our intention that there will be no regression in the powers of the commission, particularly with regard to section 73. We are examining carefully what to do to ensure that that is the case. Perhaps I can write to the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk on the point about freedom of information in relation to clause 6.
	I want to respond, however, to the point made about the state of the nation report and the function of the commission to monitor equality. That is an innovative new duty to measure progress on human rights and equality. It is important, of course, that the commission gets it right. The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk argued that the process should happen every year. In fact, we will need to take time both to gather evidence and to ensure that the right indicators are in place. That is why clause 13 provides for wide consultation. It is important that that process should not be not rushed. I assure him that under clause 44, the commission will be able to continue an action started by one of the three existing commissions.
	One of the important things about the commission will be the way in which it recognises the new nature of devolution in the UK. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North raised issues in relation to Wales. I assure her that members of the Wales committee, while appointed by the CEHR board, will in practice be appointed in consultation with the National Assembly for Wales. Of course, the chair of that committee will be the commissioner with special responsibility for Wales, who will have been appointed in agreement with the Assembly. We will of course want to ensure that the commission works closely with both the Children's Commissioner for Wales and the older persons' commissioner for Wales.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston and others raised the issue of disability in particular. We have listened carefully and taken into consideration the recent history of development in relation to disability, not least the important progress made with the Disability Rights Commission. That is why we have made provision for a disability commissioner and disability committee. As my right hon. Friend said, many people in the disability world are now convinced and more confident that they will benefit from a commission that can not only give a strong voice to disabled people in determining progress on their legislation, which is right, but address cross-strand issues and be a more powerful and effective body.
	I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East for his comments about the way in which the Government have tried to listen to the understandable concerns of black and ethnic minority communities, especially those represented by the Commission for Racial Equality, the 1990 Trust and others.
	We have listened, I believe that we have addressed those concerns, and I can give my hon. Friend this commitment: we will continue to listen to those communities and ensure that they have a voice through the commission. I entirely agree that we must ensure that both commissioners and staff represent a model for the diversity that we feel should be promoted.

MENTAL CAPACITY BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 4)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(6),
	That the following proceedings shall apply to the Mental Capacity Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 11th October 2004, as varied by the Orders of 12th October 2004 and 14th December 2004:
	Consideration of Lords Amendments
	1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
	Subsequent stages
	2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any further question being put.
	3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—[James Purnell.]
	The House divided: Ayes 277, Noes 97.

Clause 2
	 — 
	People who lack capacity

Brian Iddon: Does my hon. Friend agree that the publication this week of the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill, introduced in the other place by Lord Joffe, a member of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, underlines the statement that my hon. Friend has just made in this House?

Jim Dobbin: That is the legal advice that I have been given, and I understand that it is also the Government's position—perhaps the Minister will want to clarify that later.
	The amendment would not force doctors to keep treating a dying, unconscious patient where the treatment was futile and even where the family expressed the wish for the patient to die peacefully at home. By contrast, the amendment would not prevent doctors giving palliative treatment to a dying patient if foreseeably that might shorten the patient's life. We have had a superb example of that in recent days. In his last days, the Holy Father displayed the true meaning of dying with dignity. He did not ask for all the stops to be pulled out to keep him alive; he even declined to return to hospital, preferring to die at home, at the Vatican. He demonstrated that those of us opposed to any weakening of the legal prohibition and assisted suicide are not vitalists, and I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that today.
	Without the amendment, we have only clause 4(5), the best interests provision, which prevents anyone, in considering a person's best interests, from being motivated by a desire to bring about death, but the clause does not apply to advance decisions, as the Government have made clear. Without my amendment it would be possible under the Bill for an expressly suicidal advance decision to be legal and binding on the doctor with care of the patient.
	Throughout discussion of the Bill, I have not doubted the Government's good intentions, but good law is far more important. In addition to the loophole that I have already identified, there is nothing in the Bill to deal with a dangerous situation such as the one we witnessed in the United States last week in the Terri Schiavo case, where the attorney had a vested financial interest in the incapacitated patient's premature death. We do not want to get into such a situation, but if the Bill is not amended we shall be starting down that dangerous road. It is not too late for the Government to amend the Bill, and many people up and down the country, who are closely monitoring today's events, will be sorely disappointed if the Government fail to respond appropriately.
	I accept your ruling about a vote on my amendment, Mr. Speaker. In that event, I should seek powerful reassurances from the Government that all the concerns that I have raised in my speech be taken into consideration and covered in some detail.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the Lords amendments. I shall centre my comments on amendment (b) to Lords amendment No. 24, tabled in my name and that of many other Members.
	I was present on Second Reading and privileged to sit on the Standing Committee that scrutinised the Bill. I am pleased that some of the concerns that we expressed in the Chamber and in Committee were accepted by the Lords and are reflected in their amendments. I am pleased that we have moved to written advance directives. That is immensely important and provides huge reassurance, but I am deeply concerned about our failure adequately to address advance directions and the admissions within that.
	It is still possible for an individual to specify in an advance direction that they do not wish to receive food or water. That individual is essentially giving other individuals the right to kill them either through hunger or dehydration. Neither method of death is humane. We would not tolerate them for an animal, nor for any other people in society who are fit, able and capable of deciding for themselves, but it seems that we will tolerate those methods of death for the most vulnerable of all in our society.
	For those reasons, I cannot agree to the Bill, which does not afford protection to people in that position. While people are incapacitated and in that state, they cannot stand for themselves, but others will. I personally would not want to stand by and see someone die of starvation. I would not want them to see them die of dehydration. I would go to court to say, "If the Government have given licence to this individual to die using the method of starvation or dehydration, I want to challenge that because it is inhumane." It would not be right for me as a family member, an advocate, a deputy or a friend to stand by and watch that happen. If the Government have allowed that individual to exercise that right, why should they decide the means? Why should they decide the time? If that individual elects to die, why should we not allow them to do so in the manner of their choosing and at a time of their choosing? That is why, as the clauses that relate to advance directives have not been amended, it is effectively euthanasia by omission.
	I agree with the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) that the House will have to deal with the issue again. Just as the Bland judgment brought us to this point with the Bill, we will be brought back and asked to codify the law.

Paul Burstow: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) and hon. Members on both sides of the House for the way in which they have pursued their concerns about aspects of the Bill during its passage. I certainly echo the comments of the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) about the adequacy of the time that we have tonight to do justice to those concerns. However, anyone who has read the proceedings of the other House's consideration of the Bill and the detailed exchanges of views that took place among those with legal and medical backgrounds cannot fail to have been impressed by the way in which the other place considered the legislation and diligently advanced the improvements to it that are before us tonight. The Bill has been significantly improved by that process.
	On Report, I added my name to several amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) about the question of purpose. Having read and studied the matters considered in the other place in some detail, the amendment that he has tabled tonight raises other concerns.
	I was especially struck by an exchange on Report in the other place on 15 March. My noble friend Lord Carlile put seven points to the Government, two of which were referred to by the hon. Member for Daventry: whether the Bill could be stretched in such a way as to allow euthanasia—voluntary or otherwise—by the back door or through the front door, and whether it could allow assisted suicide and whether advance directives could allow someone with suicidal intent to use the Bill for that purpose. The answers to those questions are set out in great detail at column 1278 of the relevant Hansard, so I urge hon. Members who still have worries to study it. I hope that the Minister will be able to reaffirm what was said in the other place.
	Advance decisions are important and clearly still cause concern. They cannot require doctors to do anything and would not require them to do anything that would aid and abet a suicide. English law is clear that no person can ask for assistance in committing suicide by refusing treatment, but the Bill puts into statute the common-law right to refuse treatment. The important thing is that the Bill errs on the side of life. It protects doctors. If doctors had any doubt about the state of mind of individuals when they wrote their advance decisions or when they lost capacity, or if medicine had moved on so that things of which individuals were not aware became possible, doctors could step in and act to safeguard life. Surely we should celebrate that as a way in which the Bill has moved forward.
	I was struck forcefully by an example cited in the other place about Jehovah's Witnesses, who, on the ground of strongly-held convictions, refuse blood transfusions. They may do that while they have capacity, but if several of the amendments tabled tonight were accepted, they would not be able to have their views, wishes and values—their belief system—respected through the treatment that they received if they lost capacity. If they had a car crash, someone else could decide, against their belief, that they should have a blood transfusion. We are talking about the right of individuals to refuse treatment, or their personal autonomy. We must be careful when we encroach on people's autonomy, although I think that the Bill tries to avoid doing that by carefully constructing a framework to safeguard the individual.

Gerald Kaufman: We recognise that these are agonising issues. Recent events in the United States, which we have seen on television, have shown just how agonising these issues are. They are not simple issues, but there is a simple issue behind what some of us seek to achieve, which is to prevent legislation that would allow euthanasia by the back door. That is what has motivated my approach to the Bill from the beginning.
	I am baffled by the way in which the Government have handled the Bill from the beginning of its passage through Parliament. If I am fortunate enough to be re-elected in four weeks' time, I shall have sat in the House a few weeks after that for 35 years. Never have I known a Government handle a Bill of this sort in this way. To begin with, no Bill that I have been involved in, dealing with issues of this kind, has been whipped. It has been a tradition of my party—I am not interested in how the other parties conduct themselves—that on issues of conscience such as capital punishment, gay rights or abortion, we are not whipped.
	I pleaded with the Government, both at meetings of the Parliament Labour party and at private meetings with the Chief Whip, not to whip us on this Bill. It is still beyond my understanding why we are being whipped. It is totally beyond me. Yet we are proceeding with the Bill and with the aspects with which the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) is dealing in his amendments, on the basis of an extraordinary preoccupation that it is vital, in the dying stages of this Parliament, with only a few days left, that this piece of legislation survives.
	This is not a Labour Bill—it did not originate within the Labour party. It is not a manifesto commitment. The Bill originated 16 years ago under the previous Conservative Government as an omission by the Law Commission. For some reason, it has now surfaced as a piece of legislation that a Labour Government, working hard to get themselves re-elected for an historic third term, believe is essential and should receive Royal Assent.

Helen Jones: I am listening carefully to what my hon. Friend has said, and I accept his view that this Bill has been much improved in the House of Lords. Will he address, however, the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin) in relation to ensuring that we prevent advance directives containing suicidal intentions being carried out? If, as the Minister said, that is the Government's intention—I accept his honest view on that—what is wrong with accepting the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton?

Gareth Thomas: I accept that absolutely. I would not want to suggest that we do not want to see more action to reduce drug prices further. I simply say that I think that my hon. Friend's point about capacity and the need to train up more people to help to provide support to orphans and vulnerable children, and more broadly to those who are HIV positive or have full-blown AIDS, is absolutely right.
	In the context of the drugs that we can provide and are available at present to help children living with HIV, one of the things that we have been able to do to provide support through the £1.5 billion that we have set aside is to invest in trials of cheaper drugs. The particular one that I am thinking of is co-trimoxazole, which could halve the death rate for HIV infected children in Africa.
	We have invested also in a new research programme to examine the provision of anti-retroviral treatment for children in areas where money, health staff and transport facilities are in short supply. We are already providing support to a range of civil society organisations, including organisations based in the UK—I gave the example of Christian Aid, which we are supporting in South Africa, which works with the Anglican Church there. There are other such organisations. We have recently increased our funding for those organisations with which we have long-term relationships. We have asked them, in a sense as part of their response to receiving the extra money, to prioritise additional work on HIV/AIDS issues.
	My hon. Friend has brought forward a particularly interesting proposal. I am grateful to her for her recent letter, setting out her proposals to support the civil society response to children affected by AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa. I can assure my hon. Friend that as a result of her letter we are considering seriously her idea seriously. I have asked my officials to discuss it with other partners, including the UN and UNICEF in particular, to explore whether are additional things that we can do in line with the idea that my hon. Friend has identified.
	This is, as my hon. Friend has alluded to, a difficult area in which to reach the right partners in a sustainable way. There are real issues about how we provide support to community-based organisations that seeks to scale up support that is sustainable and allows the development of capacity on the ground.
	It is right that we continue to prioritise the bulk of our funding on HIV-AIDS, so as to scale up the ability of Government to provide effective responses to the challenge in developing countries. However, I recognise that there are too many HIV and AIDS orphans in developing countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, who are not getting the support that they need now. For that reason, my hon. Friend's proposal is timely. We are considering her idea seriously. We are discussing it with partners. I hope that she will be willing to discuss the idea further with us at the Department, when our thinking has developed and after the election has taken place.
	I believe that the £1.5 billion that we have made available over the next three years to scale up our response to HIV and AIDS orphans has set a template for others in the international community to respond to. I believe also that our replenishment conference for the global fund and our broader AIDS funding conference will help to scale up and to leverage additionally our funding for those members of the international community and those multilateral organisations that are playing such a key role in the fight against AIDS. HIV/AIDS orphans must continue to receive attention from Members of this place. My hon. Friend, as I have said, is a doughty campaigner on this issue. I look forward—
	The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and   the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned at nineteen minutes past Nine o'clock.